Rick, Bo, Daina and all,
Rick wrote:
we need to do ome latching, but first,
we need the basics codified so that there's something to latch to.
Yes, the basics codified. When Mr. Pirsig says that the MOQ, which has
discovered him, states 'everything is value' this means: ' In the beginning
there is value..' - before one starts to reflect, object, think -
whatever -. So if one wants to speak fairly of the MOQ one has to take this
issue for granted.
Starting from this the charge of emotivism and of utilitarism fails. The
charge of emotivism fails because, critics which say that the MOQ supports a
way of looking at values the way the viewer likes to, assume that the MOQ
user looks at value contures from within. Same goes for the charge of
utilitarism only with the difference that critics position the starting
point of every agent - think or do - of the MOQ applier outside of value
contures. Both arguments do not say anything beneficial about the MOQ but
are an indirect hint of the critics position. People deeply caught by the
absolutistic way of scientific empirism.
IMO a typical case of a large box (S/O) trying to contain a small box.
Does not the MOQ say that we are neither inside nor outside of values but
(if You see the world as an twodimensional map) walk the contures which
define the value - always ?
Of course we can not take an objective (neutral) position.
Bo wrote:
The first postulates - axioms - of any all-encompassing systems
(from geometry to metaphysics) are supposed to be self-evident:
not proven. It is the ability of the system to resolve the paradoxes
of the former which is its proof and the MOQ has done so
excessively regarding the SOM.
I support this and I do not understand Ricks critique though I can not go
further into that.
Anyway - We talk about two different systems when we do not accept certain
postulates, of which one is ' Everything is value'.
I must go now.
Andreas
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST